Media Curmudgeon

« NY Times, Lower Revenue, Fewer Pulitzers | Main | More on "After Imus" »

April 30, 2007

After Imus, Advertisers Should Step Up

The Don Imus firing by NBC and CBS served as an opportunity to call public attention to the dirty little secret that that the big, main-stream-media has been broadcasting and promoting personalities who consistently use offensive language for years. Like Captain Renault in the movie “Casablanca,” NBC and CBS were shocked, shocked that indecent language was going on.

In “Casablanca,” the Nazi Officer, Major Strasser, ordered Captain Renault to close down Rick’s Café, and when Renault said, “But everybody’s having such a good time,” Strasser replied, “Yes. Much too good a time. The place is to be closed.” Renault then says, “But I have no excuse to close it.” Strasser replies, “Find one.” Renault closes the café and Rick asks him, “How can you close me up? On what grounds?”, to which Renault makes his classic reply “I’m shocked. Shocked to find that gambling is going on here,” and then accepts his gambling winnings.

MSNBC and CBS knew perfectly well that Imus often used racist and sexist language, poked nasty fun at his guests, and often crossed the line of good taste and used offensive language—offensive to some but not necessarily to his predominately male audience. But he wasn’t indecent, according to the FCC guidelines on indecent language; he knew enough not to use the seven dirty words you can’t on television. Therefore, technically, he wasn’t indecent, so NBC and CBS didn’t have an excuse to close him up. Furthermore, Imus’s advertisers and their agencies were familiar with his content and gladly placed commercials in that program environment.

But Imus’s racist, sexist remark about the Rutgers women’s basketball team provided the two networks with an excuse, although one they weren’t necessarily looking for. Just as Renault’s “shocked” remark was disingenuous, so were NBC’s and CBS’s press releases rationalizing Imus’s termination. They might have taken the high ground if they had fired Imus immediately, but both networks waited over a week, which made it look like they bowed to pressure from advertisers, their employees, and Al Sharpton. So their reluctant behavior brings up an interesting question: Will NBC and CBS be more careful in the future about hiring personalities who use offensive language?

The answer is no. The networks will continue to hire personalities who bring in audiences, even if these stars continually push the bounds of good taste and teeter on the edge of indecency and objectionable material. They will do this for several reasons: 1) Competitive pressure for ratings. Younger viewers (18-34), who all broadcast and cable networks covet, prefer edgy, boundary-pushing performers. 2) Younger viewers and listeners, especially those in urban areas, have different and much more liberal sensitivities and definitions of objectionable and indecent material than older people, conservatives, many lawmakers, and the FCC do. 3) As long as most advertisers and their agencies seek younger audiences, they will buy advertising in efficiently priced programming. 4) Hiring personalities with high name recognition and with established personas and reputations is a safe choice.

By being safe, I mean safe for the executives who make programming decisions. If they hire an edgy star, when he crosses over the line of offensiveness, programming executives can avoid blame by saying, “It’s not my fault for choosing him, it’s his fault for not obeying the rules I laid down.” When a network exec hired the star, the exec said something like, “You know the rules; no obscenities or hate talk,” and winked. The star said, “Of course not,” and winked back. The wink means, “Don’t get caught.”

Stars will do anything to get the affection and approval they desperately need and are addicted to, and they will push the limits to get the unconditional love of their audience and bosses as measured by ratings. The bosses pay the stars exorbitant salaries as a means of holding them hostage to the boss’s whims and fickleness, based on the shifting winds of public, press, regulators’, and advertisers’ opinions. It’s very risky for the stars, but they know the game. They must push the envelope of tastefulness (vulgarity, nudity, violence, etc.) to appeal to younger viewers, and occasionally go over the line and risk getting fired. The most successful stars push the envelope, but don’t self-destruct. Leno, Letterman, O’Brien , and before them, Johnny Carson, are masters of walking the fine line but staying in bounds.

Even if they go outside the lines (or get caught, which is the real issue) and get fired, stars know they will be re-hired by someone who wants ratings more than propriety. Thus, Imus will be back on the air, just as Bill Maher was back on after he “left” ABC. Rosie O’Donnell will eventually be back somewhere after she leaves ABC’s “The View” in June.

So, three questions come to mind: 1) Should the broadcast and cable networks censor their programming and eliminate objectionable content? 2) Who should decide on the standards for objectionable content, the programmers, the audience, or the creators of the content, and 3) what are the limits of free speech?

I believe the networks have the obligation to have control, including censorship, over the content of their programming and each should decide on their own standards for objectionable content. Thus, ABC, which is owned by the Walt Disney Company, might have stricter standards for what constitutes objectionable programming than might, say, CBS, which is controlled by Sumner Redstone, who also controls MTV. A radio or television station in New York or San Francisco might have different standards from one in Omaha or Memphis.

As far as free speech, people should have the right to say what they want, but they must realize that the owner of the distribution channel for that speech has the right to say, “You may say what you like, but not on my network.” Thus, NBC and CBS each had the right to stop winking, fire Imus, and say “not on my network.”

However, viewers, listeners, and activists, such as Al Sharpton, will have little influence on the broadcast and cable networks and broadcast stations because the audience is not a single monolith, it is comprised of a multitude of groups that have a wide variety of preferences, tastes, values, ages, races, sexual orientations, religions, and political affiliations. Therefore, there are no universal or broadly accepted standards for tasteless or objectionable program content, and so the networks and their stars will continue to push the envelope.

Thus, the ultimate arbiter must be advertisers. Each advertiser must decide which content creates a suitable environment for its advertising. Is the content credible, does it reflect an attitude that enhances the image of an advertiser’s product or service? Is the content in attitudinal and emotional harmony with its target audience? Will the content reflect well on an advertiser’s image? Procter & Gamble, the world's leading advertiser, has long avoided controversial programming and editorial content that it feels doesn’t create a desirable, product-friendly environment. I have a sense that after the Imus affair more advertisers will take a closer look at the content in which their advertising is imbedded and begin to have their agencies make buying decisions based as much on program environment as on ratings.

If hate and pornographic content on the airwaves is going to be toned down, advertisers are going to have to demand it, because the stars and the networks won’t stop it on their own—they’re addicted to it.

Posted by Charles Warner at April 30, 2007 04:42 PM

Comments

Post a comment